They kiss the «Ring of the Fisherman». It has an image of the Apostle Peter, and the Pope claims to be his successor.
The Vatican faithful claims not to be worshipers of idols. They say they just «venerate» them. Its simply not true. Many Catholics acknowledge that its wrong to bow down to statues in their Churches, wrong to kiss their idols. I agree with them
But few Catholics knows that the Pope himself forces his faithful to bow down, and kiss an idol. Many think, that when Kings and Prime Ministers bow down, they kiss the hand of the Pope, as some kind of sign of respect of the pontiff.
But what they all do, is to bow down and kiss the gold ring, that the Pope has on his fourth finger. The «Ring of the fisherman».
This ring is an idol of what the Vatican claims to be an image of the Apostles Peter, sitting in a boat. The ring also has the imprint of the name of the present Pope. When you bow down to kiss this gold ring, you break the Second Commandment and you accept and submit to the Apostolic succession of the popes in Rome.
Exodus 20:4-6
“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.
(end of scripture)
Even a ten year old boy can read and understand his Bible verse. No man shall make idols and images like this, neither should we bows down to them and kiss them. If this is not idol worship, than nothing is.
When a king bows down and kisses the Fisherman’s Ring on the finger of the Pope, he bows down to the same anti-Biblical Spiritual force that controls the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only difference, is that the Iranian president kisses the hand of his Ayatollah.
When you read this, you might start to understand why Rome and Islam have struck a peace deal, and indulge in «interfaith dialogues», to promote the coming false World peace. They serve the same «god», who can never be my God. The God of the Bible.
More about the ring of the Fisherman: First from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Ring of the Fisherman
The earliest mention of the Fisherman’s ring worn by the popes is in a letter of Clement IV written in 1265 to his nephew, Peter Grossi. The writer states that popes were then accustomed to seal their private letters with “the seal of the Fisherman”, whereas public documents, he adds, were distinguished by the leaden “bulls” attached (see BULLS AND BRIEFS). From the fifteenth century, however, the Fisherman’s ring has been used to seal the class of papal official documents known as Briefs. The Fisherman’s ring is placed, by the cardinal camerlengo on the finger of a newly elected pope. It is made of gold, with a representation of St. Peter in a boat, fishing, and the name of the reigning pope around it.
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia
Kissing the Pope’s Ring
Kissing the Ring of the Fisherman, or the Pescatorio in Italian, is a Roman Catholic tradition that has been passed down for centuries. [27] Each newly ordained Pope is given a gold ring with his name in raised lettering and the image of St. Peter in a fishing boat.[28] The Pope is believed to be the spiritual inheritor of the apostle Peter, who was known as one of the “fishers of men” (Mark 1:17). Originally the ring was used to seal documents, historically called papal briefs. However, this custom ended in 1842 when the wax seal was replaced by a stamp. Today, followers of the Catholic faith pay respect to the reining Pope by kneeling before him and kissing his ring.
Source: Wikipedia.com
First published: 19th of June, 2009.
Written by Ivar
News that matters 
I am happy to read your article.I have a You Tube about this: Why do People Kiss the Pope’s Ring? Why do they bow to him like a King? https://youtu.be/Kr0ypfhK_No Blessings,Barbara
I think you have to be a true Catholic to know and understand that to us the ring is just a status symbol, not an idol. We only worship God. I don’t know any catholic or christian ,for that matter, that worships idols , that includes statues and religious relics. Venerating the later is tradition and it’s like regarding them with respect – that is all. Please don’t get yourself caught up in disinformation.I know it appears like idol worship – but to us that is such a ridiculous proposition.
I’ve always wondered why the Romans obsessed with Peter, the apostle to the Jews, instead of Paul the apostle to the gentiles except for the fact that Paul would have called them out. I suspect it is due to the Romans creating the new government state religion by hijacking Christianity and declaring the Jews as “the enemies of God” and establishing replacement theology. Peter (petros, a small unreliable stone) is the foundation for their religion, NOT, Jesus the Rock (Petra, an immoveable rock). And the kingdom of Rome continues to this day, with 1.2 billion Romans, they are the 3rd largest kingdom in the world, with 40% from South America ( ummm, Francis). Not a small consideration when the King of the North sets to attack Israel…….
@ godsfingers
You stated: “I’ve always wondered why the Romans obsessed with Peter, the apostle to the Jews, instead of Paul the apostle to the gentiles except for the fact that Paul would have called them out.”
I don’t believe that to be true. On what basis would you believe that?
“I suspect it is due to the Romans creating the new government state religion by hijacking Christianity and declaring the Jews as “the enemies of God” and establishing replacement theology.”
Uh, how did you even come to believe such an absurdity? The Church doesn’t replace Israel: it becomes part of Israel. That is in accordance with Scripture – particularly with Romans Romans 11, where Gentiles are “grafted onto the vine.”
You stated: “Peter (petros, a small unreliable stone) is the foundation for their religion, NOT, Jesus the Rock (Petra, an immoveable rock).”
Petros is a rock – not a small unreliable/insignificant stone. The reason for this understanding of Scripture becomes clearer on closer examination.
I will use BibleHub (a Protestant Source) for info. You can search it for yourself since the last time Is attempted to post links with supporting evidence, my links were removed. So here goes.
Look at the Greek for Matthew 16:18,19 KJV:
It was a play on words. I’d it were in Aramaic – the language of the day, Jesus would’ve said “You are Kepha, & on this kepha…” The word & name would be the same. You can’t do that in Greek – as anyone speaking a Romance language like Spanish would understand because the word for rock is feminine, so it is Petros (masculine) & petra (feminine). In Spanish it’s Pedro for Peter & piedra for rock. The bigger clue comes in v.19. When Jesus said:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
He isn’t speaking of Himself: He is referencing Isaiah 22:15-24. Shebna was replaced by God as the Palace Administrator/Chief Steward of his master’s household. In the keys being given to Eliakim, he was being given great authority & responsibility by his master. His power would be equal to that of a Prime Minister. Think of the power that Joseph held in Egypt being second only to Pharaoh, & you understand the power given him – & likewise to St. Peter. There is a difference in the Holder of the Keys – & the one given the keys. History shows this great power.
And the kingdom of Rome continues to this day, with 1.2 billion Romans, they are the 3rd largest kingdom in the world, with 40% from South America ( ummm, Francis). Not a small consideration when the King of the North sets to attack Israel…….
And this is important to you because…?
There is no “king of Rome.“ Catholicism is the original Christian Church. Protestantism arose from breaking off in rebellion to the Church that Christ had established. That is historical. Ask yourself when your church was founded. If your church was established after 1500 AD, guess what? That’s 1500 yrs after the fact. Who founded your church? Luther? Calvin? Zwingli? Some other Reformer? If your church wasn’t around from about 33 AD onward, guess what? Your church wasn’t established by Christ.
How quaint, the “original” christian church. RC was invented by hijacking the Christian church by the Roman gods, Constantine and Helena, to replace the failing Roman religion. Period. To answer your question, my church was founded by the Christ, built on and established by Paul (who incidentally NEVER mentions Mary, neither do any of the Apostles for that matter), so yes, it IS from around 30 (hate to break it to you but your calendar is wrong) onward, copious with the Holy Spirit and having nothing to do with the RC ( which Jesus hates since they are given over to the practice of the Nicolaitians) for influence. Nor, your your obvious disgust for so called reformers (who, I note, still carry forward Roman influence with Jew hate), have influence either, only Greek and Hebrew Bible (and, if you will, non Roman historical references).
“And this is important to you because…?”……Since you only believe that the Revelation to John is allegorical you wouldn’t grasp the notion of the new Roman army marching on the middle East to Armageddon…..
Back to Peter, thank you for saving time in establishing my discussion. By establishing that Petra is feminine you make my case the He is talking about himself, given that Mary gave Jesus His humanity (no, she is NOT the mother of God) it follows that, then, the Rock (Himself) id the foundation of the church, and the “keys” ( if you will) you’d mentioned are the lineage of Jesus, down through Eliakim. Though, when Jesus said He will give “you”, plural, the keys it is the Holy Spirit and the Gifts delineated in 1 Cor 12 and 14. He said “I will” even though they had already been sent out to heal and cast out demons previously. So the church, would be given the “keys” later, after the Ascension on Pentecost. You stated Petros is a rock – not a small unreliable/insignificant stone, yes it is, by definition.
Back to Peter obsession, Peter was missionary to the Jews, period. Paul was missionary to the Gentiles, period. Paul called out Peter for his duplicity and fakery, just as I am calling out your fakery. The RC church is nothing but a whitewashed sepulcher full of dead man’s bones. I’ve always seen that by scripture but it came home when my wife ( former RC) said that ALL catholic churches are required to have a “relic” in the church or dead man’s ( or woman I guess) bones. I laughed when you suggested Calvin. A lawyer, who some actually hold as Paul reincarnated given that he is credited for killing as many as 50 Christians while he was RC before he was “changed”. I got a kick out of your list, given that they all, like your RC are replacement theology churches, all responsible for fomenting and carrying on the Holocaust.
I really do feel pain and sorrow for the RC adherents and the deception from false teachers that have taken them over. But I do appreciate when one of their “learned” comes and it gives me the opportunity to live 1 Peter 3:15
godsfingers commented on Kissing the ring of the fisherman.
in response to ashiraladonai:
@ godsfingers You stated: “I’ve always wondered why the Romans obsessed with Peter, the apostle to the Jews, instead of Paul the apostle to the gentiles except for the fact that Paul would have called them out.” I don’t believe that to be true. On what basis would you believe that? “I suspect it is […]
[1] You stated: “How quaint, the ‘original’ christian church.”
Well, there is nothing “quaint” about it. It is in fact the original historical Church. History supports that position.
[2] You stated: “RC was invented by hijacking the Christian church by the Roman gods, Constantine and Helena, to replace the failing Roman religion. Period. To answer your question, my church was founded by the Christ,…”
This is a very common historical fallacy. How do you reconcile your statement with the fact that around 107-110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch had written in his Epistle (Letter) to the Smyrnaeans the following?
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, **wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church** . It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Since the word “Catholic” was already in use & in existence as early as the 2nd century AD, & since its use was in a very common way, it is believed to have been in existence even before St. Ignatius’ writing.
[3] You stated: “…built on and established by Paul…”
While I agree that St. Paul had established various churches that were all part of One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), & Apostolic Church in the then-known world, he didn’t establish denominational churches as we know most Protestant churches today. That would’ve qualified as “factions”, something that he himself had written against.
[4] You stated: “…(who incidentally NEVER mentions Mary, neither do any of the Apostles for that matter),
How did you manage of gloss over your own Scriptures? Of course, the Blessed Virgin was mentioned. Did you forget the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel in Luke 1 regarding the birth of Our Savior? Did you omit the fact that when Gabriel speaks to the Blessed Virgin he addresses her by the title/new name of Kecharitomene, which some translate as “highly favored” or “full of grace” or “endowed with grace” or “graceful”? Why do you think this she was given this name/title acknowledging her in this way before the birth of the Savior? Why do you think she was full of grace in preparation for His birth? Did you miss all of the other times that the Gospel writers mentioned her – even St. Luke when she was present at Pentecost? Did you neglect St. John the Evangelist writing in the Book of Revelation in Ch. 12?
[5] You further stated: “…so yes, it IS from around 30 (hate to break it to you but your calendar is wrong) onward, copious with the Holy Spirit and having nothing to do with the RC ( which Jesus hates since they are given over to the practice of the Nicolaitians) for influence.
History records that the Nicolaitians “were considered heretical by the mainstream Church. According to Revelation 2:6 and 15,[1] they were known in the cities of Ephesus and Pergamum….” & “The Nicolas (Νικόλαος) of Acts 6:5 was a native of Antioch and a proselyte (convert to Judaism) and then a follower of the way of Christ. When the Church was still confined to Jerusalem, he was chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples to be one of the first seven deacons, and he was ordained by the apostles, c. AD 33. It has been questioned whether this Nicolas was connected with the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation, and if so, how closely.
Irenaeus, was of the opinion that he was their founder.
The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.
— Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, i. 26, §3[17]” (Wikipedia on Nicolaism)
So your comment, while intending to be an insult, failed to produce its intended effect. In addition, it failed in its application to the Catholic Church.
[6] You stated: “Nor, your your obvious disgust for so called reformers (who, I note, still carry forward Roman influence with Jew hate), have influence either, only Greek and Hebrew Bible (and, if you will, non Roman historical references).
The only one holding up his nose, sir, is you. I pointed out the Reformers because in seeking to separate themselves & all believers from the Church, amputed parts of it to their own ends. That is historically accurate.
[7] “And this is important to you because…?”……Since you only believe that the Revelation to John is allegorical you wouldn’t grasp the notion of the new Roman army marching on the middle East to Armageddon…..
When did I claim it was only allegorical? You made that assumption yourself – & it was a bad one at that. As regards the Roman Army marching on the Middle East to Armageddon, what army? The pagan Roman Empire of long ago is dead.
[8] You stated: “Back to Peter, thank you for saving time in establishing my discussion. By establishing that Petra is feminine you make my case the He is talking about himself, given that Mary gave Jesus His humanity (no, she is NOT the mother of God) it follows that, then, the Rock (Himself) id the foundation of the church, and the “keys” ( if you will) you’d mentioned are the lineage of Jesus, down through Eliakim.
You have brought up several topics on this one part. I’ll need to address them all as your comments are quite a stretch. You stated that “By establishing that Petra is feminine you make my case the He is talking about himself?” You clearly know nothing about what I’d stated demonstrating a lack of knowledge of languages.
Some languages use feminine & masculine nouns. It means nothing about what you suggest. The gender of nouns is common in languages like Spanish, Italian, French, German, & even Greek. Petros is masculine because no man would use a feminine noun for a man’s name. It would’ve been “You are Kepha, & on this kepha” in Aramaic. Peter (Rock) is the petra (rock) because the play on words didn’t translate as easily into the Greek from the Aramaic. In Spanish it is “Tu eres Pedro, & sobre esta piedra…”
Interesting point about Eliakim that you’d mentioned about the genealogy of Jesus, but no, it doesn’t work, sir. The Scriptures point out that Eliakim would be given the keys to His Master’s House. Eliakim replaced Shebna, the palace administrator/chief steward. Unless you’re implying that Our Lord is a servant of His House, the logic doesn’t follow. Isaiah further goes on to say of Shebna: “become a disgrace to your master’s house. I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position. Since when did Jesus ever have to worry about being ousted from His position?
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah.
21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah.
22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat[a] of honor for the house of his father.
24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
25 “In that day,” declares the Lord Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The Lord has spoken.
The thing is nowhere in any of this passage is it mentioned that Eliakim would have eternal authority. His was a temporary authority – but power & authority he would have by God’s calling. The same applies to St. Peter since Christ had referred to him in citing Is. 22.
[9] You stated: “Though, when Jesus said He will give “you”, plural, the keys it is the Holy Spirit and the Gifts delineated in 1 Cor 12 and 14.
Uh, hold on. We are talking about Mt. 16:18-19, & in the original Greek, the “you” you’d mentioned is 2nd person singular – not plural. If you doubt, check it on the BibleHub Website’s Greek Lexicon (A Protestant Site). You can even check the verb conjugation. I’d post the link, but the last time I’d posted any links, my links were removed.
Later on in Mt 18:18, the Scriptures mentioned binding & loosing, & there it was plural, but one needs to look at the context.
[10] You stated: “He said “I will” even though they had already been sent out to heal and cast out demons previously. So the church, would be given the “keys” later, after the Ascension on Pentecost. You stated Petros is a rock – not a small unreliable/insignificant stone, yes it is, by definition.”
It was not the Church which was given the keys, sir, & the original Greek demonstrates this in the 2nd-person singular conjugation. This is a misconception on your part.
[11] You stated: “Back to Peter obsession, Peter was missionary to the Jews, period. Paul was missionary to the Gentiles, period.
Paul called out Peter for his duplicity and fakery, just as I am calling out your fakery.”
I bring up no fakery as you claim, sir. I suggest you watch yourself for your unChristian behavior.
Peter was human as the rest of us are human, & the Gospel accounts demonstrate just how human he & the rest of the Apostles were, but unlike us, he was give a special gift. You trust the Bible even though it was written by fallible men who were inspired & equipped of God to write our Holy Scriptures. I believe God does likewise to & through whomever He choses for His purposes. I believe He’d called St. Peter as the Chief Steward/Shepherd of His flock – the Church, & I believe he is given the gift of infallibility in matters of upholding the faith’s Traditions/Teachings. Jesus did call him to feed & tend His sheep. What kind of leader is called to oversee the flock? A bishop…in the Greek, it is episkopos for an Overseer/Guardian… You apparently don’t have a problem holding to the writings of fallible men when carried by the Holy Spirit. Why not St. Peter & his successors? There is Biblical precedent for Apostolic succession.
[12] You stated: “The RC church is nothing but a whitewashed sepulcher full of dead man’s bones. I’ve always seen that by scripture but it came home when my wife ( former RC) said that ALL catholic churches are required to have a “relic” in the church or dead man’s ( or woman I guess) bones.”
Hmmm…Interesting that you find it funny. Did you ever read Revelation 6? It might give you some insight into the practice of the relics. Why…? Well, have a look:
9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.
10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”
11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters,[e] were killed just as they had been.
So the souls of the martyred saints are under the altar in heaven. Does your church have an altar? For dead saints, they sure seem very much alive in the Scriptures…
[13] You stated: “I laughed when you suggested Calvin. A lawyer, who some actually hold as Paul reincarnated given that he is credited for killing as many as 50 Christians while he was RC before he was “changed”. I got a kick out of your list, given that they all, like your RC are replacement theology churches, all responsible for fomenting and carrying on the Holocaust.”
Catholics do not adhere to Replacement Theology, sir. That would be many Protestants. As regards the Holocaust, I would suggest looking to Luther for some of that influence. I would also suggest that you read Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History by Rodney Stark. Before you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, take the beam from your own first.
[14] You stated: “I really do feel pain and sorrow for the RC adherents and the deception from false teachers that have taken them over. But I do appreciate when one of their “learned” comes and it gives me the opportunity to live 1 Peter 3:15”
Catholics who follow their faith already do keep 1 Peter 3:15. Even more, they are richly blessed in doing as 2 Peter 1:4 says. They are obedient to Christ’s words in Jn 6:25-69.
@godsfingers
You’d stated: “…you make my case the He is talking about himself, given that Mary gave Jesus His humanity (no, she is NOT the mother of God)”
I realized after posting my last answer that I’d forgotten to address this last part.
I’ll start with the issue of the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of God. Catholics do not in any way believe that Mary, as the Mother of God, created God. Mary is the creature. She was created by God to be the sacred vessel through which Our Savior & our salvation would enter time & our humanity to condescend to become one of us – except without sin.
St. Luke told us in his Gospel the following:
Lk 1 KJV (BibleHub):
The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, **Hail, thou that art highly favoured** (Kecharitomene: full of grace – κεχαριτωμένη), **the Lord is with thee** : **blessed art thou among women** .
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for **thou hast found favour with God** .
31 **And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS** .
32 **He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David** :
33 **And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end** .
34 **Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man** ?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, **The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God** .
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38 And Mary said, **Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word** . And the angel departed from her.
Mary Visits Elizabeth
39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41 **And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost** :
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, **Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb** .
43 **And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me** ?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 **And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord** .
Elizabeth acknowledges Mary as the mother of My Lord in v.43. Elizabeth’s Lord is God, & she acknowledges the baby in Mary’s womb as Her Lord. She is therefore acknowledge as the mother of God.
Among the many titles that the Blessed Virgin is referred to within the Catholic Church, she is also called the Ark of the New Covenant. We believe that the Ark of the Covenant of the OT is a type of the Blessed Virgin, & there is much to consider on the matter.
If we look at the original Ark of the Covenant, we note the following:
1. It contained a jar of manna from the desert;
2. It contained the Tablets with the 10 Commandments (The Law) sealed by the blood of animals;
3. It contained Aaron’s staff that had budded, the proof of God’s election of him as His Chosen high priest.
The Ark of the Covenant, while made of earthly materials, was so holy that it was kept in the Holy of Holies. It was so holy that anyone not authorized to look upon it or touch it died instantly. It was built to God’s specifications for the most holy purpose of carrying Him. It was His throne on earth. The Holy Spirit overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant (See Ex 40:34-35; Nm 9:18, 22).
When we compare the Blessed Virgin with the original Ark of the Covenant, we note the following of Whom she carried in her womb: she carried Jesus Christ, Son of God, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, Son of God, & Son of Man – fully Divine, & fully Human, of Whom the Scriptures tell us is…:
1. Our Bread of Life from heaven (See John 6:25-69);
2. The Word made flesh, ushering in the New Covenant sealed in His Blood (See John 1; 1 Cor. 11:23-26);
3. Our Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (See Hebrews 4:14 – 5:10,20; Hebrews 7-10).
The Blessed Virgin was created to carry the Lord within her womb. She would’ve by design needed to have been pure – holy – without sin – for God to dwell in her womb to be a fitting vessel for Him. Catholics believe that she was immaculately conceived by a singular act of grace for that very purpose. In the OT, we read that Enoch walked with God & that he was no more because God took him. If in fact Enoch went with God, only sinlessness would allow for that. We are told that Elijah was carried up to heaven in a fiery chariot carried up in a whirlwind. If in fact he went to heaven, he could only be there without sin. The Scriptures confirm that nothing impure can enter heaven. I know most Protestants will argue that in Romans 3, we’re told that there is no one without sin, but context is key. The exception to that is Jesus Christ…& Enoch…& Elijah…& even Adam & Eve were created without sin…They did in fact sin later on, but they were created without sin. Christ restores us, conforming us to Himself. By condescending to become one of us & one with us, He united the Divine to humanity – bestowing on it a great blessing – making our spiritual adoption & our salvation possible.
For more on κεχαριτωμένη (Kecharitomene), see the Kecharitomene Website.
@godsfingers
If the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) was only the mother of Christ’s humanity, who then did she give birth to? Mothers give birth to Persons – not merely nature. The Person to Whom she’d given birth was both Divine & Human. He took on flesh to become one of us & one with us. If Christ was only human, who then are we worshipping? Mary spoke the following in Lk 1 KJV (BibleHub):
Mary’s Song of Praise (The Magnificat)
(1 Samuel 2:1-11)
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
She acknowledged her need for a savior, & she carried within her womb her Savior & the Savior of the world.
Interestingly enough when believers are baptized & receive the Holy Spirit, we receive grace. How is it that the grace that the BVM received was granted her as Kecharitomene was granted her before the Messiah’s birth – indeed at her conception, & not only granted her, but was continual by the context of the word “Kecharitomene”?